2. NEWS

The Board’s Implementer Group called on donors to follow the example of Japan and contribute funding for the people of Venezuela through an existing funding mechanism – the Strategic Fund managed by the Pan American Health Organization. The group also called on the Global Fund to continue to explore concrete mechanisms to support efforts to address this unprecedented health crisis, and to develop a more proactive and effective approach to countries in crisis.

3. NEWS

The Strategy Committee has been reviewing the current Eligibility Policy with a view to proposing a revised policy to the Board in May 2018. The committee prepared a paper for the Board meeting just completed in which it provided its current thinking on key provisions of the policy. The committee favors keeping GNI per capita to measure income. And it believes that emergency funding for ineligible countries (such as Venezuela) should be addressed outside the policy.

4. NEWS

The Board has been wrestling for some time with how best to accommodate new public donors on a Board that, in terms of voting members, is delicately balanced between a donor bloc and an implementers bloc. As an interim measure, the Board has established a non-voting seat for new public donors. Efforts to find a longer-term solution will continue.

5. NEWS

The Secretariat’s semi-annual report on the implementation of the Global Fund Strategy 2017-2022 documents significant progress on many fronts. However, it also notes that timelines and resources have been squeezed in a year where record numbers of funding requests were reviewed and then massaged in grant-making. This article reports on progress made under the first of the four strategic objectives – “Maximize impact against the diseases.” We will report on progress in implementing activities under other strategic objectives in future issues.

6. NEWS

The $312.0 million operating expenses budget for 2018 approved by the Global Fund Board includes a one-time cost of $12.0 million for the planned move of the Fund’s offices to the Global Health Campus in Geneva in early 2018. The Board asked the Secretariat to do a comprehensive review of the 2019 operating expenses budget in an effort to identify savings to offset the one-time expense.

7. NEWS

The Technical Review Panel has prepared a report on the funding requests it reviewed in Windows 1 and 2 of the current allocation period. The TRP assessed 72 program continuation requests, 38 tailored requests and 35 full review requests. This article summarizes the TRP’s general observations.

8. NEWS

We need to work with the OIG more on agreed management actions to try to make the timelines and deliverables more realistic, Marijke Wijnroks says in the Annual Report of the Interim Executive Director 2017, prepared for the Board meeting just concluded in Geneva, Switzerland. This article summarizes what Wijnroks said about AMAs and about supply chain transformation; grant-making; “Fit for the Future”; Gavi and the Global Health Campus; and the transition to the new E.D., Peter Sands.

9. NEWS

The Global Fund went into the regional consultations on CCMs talking about a differentiated approach based on country size and operational context. They came out of the consultations describing the emergence of three CCM maturity levels – Basic Governance, Program Oversight and Strategic Engagement. The goal is still to have a CCM Evolution Plan ready for the Board’s 39th meeting in May 2018.

10. NEWS

Almost all of the targets for the 2017-2022 Key Performance Indicator Framework have now been approved, providing the Global Fund with a full set of targets against which to measure its work for the next few years.

11. NEWS

Striking the right balance between fiduciary and program risk is a major challenge for the Global Fund, the Office of the Inspector General says in its semi-annual progress report. Nevertheless, the OIG noted significant progress at both Secretariat and country levels. The OIG also provided information on its 2018 work plan and on the status of agreed management actions.

12. NEWS

In its report to the Board, the Technical Evaluation Reference Group provides updates on two key initiatives: the TERG’s Strategic Review 2017 and the launch of prospective country evaluations. Of particular interest: In future, the new TERG Documents Procedure, adopted by the Strategy Committee in October, will result in many TERG reports being made public.

Global Fund Secretariat briefs the Board on outcomes of regional consultations on CCMs

Going into the regional consultations on country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs), the Global Fund was proposing to adopt a differentiated approach to the role and structure of CCMs. They said that instead of having one standard model for all countries, as at present, there should be several models based on country size and operational context. Under this proposed approach, country size included three categories: high impact, small and standard. The operational context consisted of two categories: challenging operating environments (COEs) and countries in transition.

This idea met with some resistance during the regional consultations (see GFO articles here and here). In a paper prepared for the Board meeting just concluded in Geneva, the Global Fund Secretariat said that a major finding from the consultations was the emergence of three CCM “maturity levels” – Basic Governance, Program Oversight and Strategic Engagement. The paper defined these levels as follows:

Basic Governance refers to CCMs that have weak governance structures, coordinate Global Fund programs only around funding applications, and face challenges to get the CCM to function as a multi-sectoral platform.

Program Oversight refers to CCMs that have strong governance structures, effectively engage with principal recipients (PRs), implement an adequate level of oversight over the programs throughout the grant lifecycle, and ensure adequate technical assistance to address bottlenecks.

Strategic Engagement refers to CCMs that fulfil requirements of program oversight; receive government co-financing to operate; optimize Global Fund funds and mobilize other funds, trying to get full program coverage; professionalize oversight; have an impact on grant ratings; act as, or link to, or embed in, the coordinating body for national programs; and plan for post–Global Fund in terms of sustainability, for example having a budget allocation.

Most CCMs are likely at the first two levels. The Global Fund’s goal is to progress CCMs to Strategic Engagement through incentives, most likely non-financial, and technical assistance. “However, the Secretariat recognizes that no matter how much support and resources are provided, not all CCMs will progress,” the paper says.

According to the paper, the consultations identified four key enablers that will help CCMs evolve to the Strategic Engagement level, as follows:

having the right leaders chairing the CCM and engaged in the CCM from the government and partners, as well as civil society and key populations;

having an effective CCM secretariat whose function and mandate evolves to better support strategic CCM functioning;

having strong support and active engagement from the Global Fund Secretariat, in particular regarding the oversight function; and

having sufficient financial resources for the CCM to function.

The paper said that the consultations identified the need to strengthen CCM engagement, oversight and linkagesto national bodies. Each of these terms was explained in more detail; here is a summary:

Regarding engagement, the CCMs must strengthen the quality of engagement of all CCM members. They must increase accountability of all sectors. Engagement should be extended to include grant-making and grant implementation. CCMs need to systematically address power imbalances across CCM constituencies. CCMs must provide solutions for logistical bottlenecks limiting civil society and key population engagement.

Expectations have to be clarified with respect to the CCM’s oversight function. The CCM can use oversight committees to regularly review PR performance with the country teams, supported by the local fund agent (LFA). The CCM needs to maximize synergies with other organizations.

CCMs should ensure robust interfaces and linkages with national bodies. Different country contexts mean that each CCM has to tailor its interface with national bodies. CCMs need to review their anchorage and legal status. Moving forward, CCMs will need to foster collaboration between existing platforms.

For COEs, the consultations sent a clear message about the added value of requiring a CCM because it empowers coordination in uncertain political settings. Given the uncertainties however, more flexibility is required, such as with the composition of the CCM. Membership in the CCM could be based how much a person can participate and which sector they represent.

Next steps

The Secretariat will proceed with the development of a CCM Evolution Plan. The Secretariat will analyze the feasibility, impact and cost of various scenarios, including one where no additional resources are available, and share the results with the Board committees at their March 2018 meetings. The Secretariat will request Board approval of any policy changes that may be required at the 39th meeting of the Board in May 2018.